Good Afternoon,

Forgive me. I’ve read this article at least twice and I still don’t seem to understand what you’re trying to say. Maybe, someone should walk me through with cue cards or something?

But what does a black man getting an aisle seat in Air Force One have to do with the issue of meritocracy and racial equality?

And how might that even correspond to the three points you mentioned? I know pyramids are supposed to posses mythical powers, but how does that idea accord with the whole mechanism of nominating a non Chinese PM in Singapore??????

[--deleted---] Allow me to explain. You don’t need to be a rocket scientist to figure out why Obama was nominated as president of the United States.

There is ONLY one reason – and contrary to what you suggested his nomination wasn’t predicated on the power of the Bermuda triangle or any supernatural 3 points.

Its even conceivable, the presidency was even decided long before anyone even cast their votes; if it wasn’t Obama, it could well have been Flipper the clapping seal or Dumbo the flying elephant providing they both contested on the democratic ticket; victory is assured; it’s a done deal; cut and dried even.

One reason for that is because the vast majority of ordinary Americans are so terminally disillusioned, demoralized and disenfranchised by 8 crushing years of snake & ladders Bush administration – most of them probably realize in the last 8 years; its a lousy idea to take advice from a Bush. You cant blame them either. [---deleted---]

Now you know why. Obama kept hitting on one point; McCain = Bush / Bush = McCain = More of the Same? You go figure that one out.

So even if McCain was contending against Elmo of Sesame street; the latter could hardly have lost.

From what you have written; you make it sound as if politics is some polite gentlemen’s game like croquet; especially when you decide to juxtapose it against the issue of “meritocracy and racial equality” along with the idea of 3 points. Nothing can be further from the truth; even PAP knows it; if they screwed up their mandate to the same degree and extent that Bush squandered his; they may very well face the same situation as what happened recently in America and it could just as well be Ahmad, Muthu or Elmo and it wouldn’t really matter what LHL said now or then either.

Do try to take this constructively; my intention here is not to deliberately cause intellectual offence; merely to illustrate succinctly what you may written here is closer to an impassionate crie de coeur (in vain, I might also add). Rather than an intelligent analysis of the PM’s statement or how one should even sensibly make sense of the issue of meritocracy and racial equality and of course nominating a non Chinese PM in Singapore.

Good day [I've to go in for a conference call, we will talk again tmr]

SD (Internet Liaison Officer of the Brotherhood)

Comments edited by moderator.

The unwritten narrative in the recent American elections can only be bear testament to meritocracy and racial equality; if both candidates ran a race where “all things were considered equal.” Under those controlled conditions; what you wrote may very well hold true.

As it is; holds no water; it’s no good

SD

Mr Balji,

Once u used the title of “non-Chinese “, you already wear a TINTED GLASS…. So, you see everything in the colour u wanted to see….

By the way, you have spent your life serving PAP media… I am really disappointed that TOC chose to aloow or invite u to take up the space here.

Singaporean

To Comment #3,

We judge people by the quality of their thought and writing, not their associations.

It’s funny how we sometimes perpetrate the “partisanship” that Obama spoke out against…it doesn’t matter whether we’re pro-PAP or pro-opposition.. as long as we’re pro-Singaporean.

singaporedaddy,

Your “analysis” of the recent election in the United States is simplistic, vague, and quite wrong. Yes, the support for Obama can be considered a referendum on the Bush years, but many other factors resulted in him winning. Sarah Palin, his ability to galvanise new and young voters, concern about McCain’s health, his campaign machine, etc. There is too much to go into detail here, suffice it to say though that your statement of “he only won because people were sick of Bush” is quite wrong. It may have been one of the reasons, but it was not the only reason, and it certainly wasn’t a case of “anybody at all” on the Democratic ticket that would have swept this election.

The point I think is that in the US, someone with Obama’s background can and has become the President. Minority or not, whatever his status and the way he might be perceived by conservative whites, the system works to let ANYONE with the capability deemed proper by the electorate can win.

#4

“We judge people by the quality of their thought and writing, not their associations.”

So where is “the quality of thgt and writing” here?

Even ST would be ashamed to print this analysis.

Even if Obama were a hispanic, chinese, jew or russian (unless the candidate professed himself to be a muslim as America may not be ready for this inclusivity in the white house)) he will make it to the Presidency in this USA election given the stupidity of the Republicans, the present state of the American economy and the long drawn Iraq conflict.
To use Obama and to quote Dhanabalan ( both men are known to be of the christian belief )in the arguments is a total disconnect; they passed of more as expressing the sublimed wishes of the writer. It is also good as repressed journalism may have finally found its outlet here.
However it must be to each his own, and best wishes to TOC moving forward..

Dear Mr Balji.
Forgive me. I really do not understand what you are trying to get at even after reading your article a couple of times. This aside, You want to be PM ? Then you must basically have a good clear mind with the ability to say difficult things in a clear ,precise and simple manner which ordinary Singaporeans like me can understand.

May I just add my 2 cents. I am a Malaysian here working in Singapore. I have recently come over. Its nice to touch base with some people who are passionate about politics and social affairs.

I will be brief. What Singaporeandaddy said may be true. In Malaysia for example, the Barisan Nasional has always relied on racial politics to further their agenda ever since I can remember. So where there is alot of malays they will field a malay candidate. If chinese area then chinese candidate and so on and so forth. But in the last GE, things did not go according to plan.

As many bumiputras even voted against many of their own malay politicians BN fielded. In some cases, they even voted outright against them.

So today, if you look at some states like Penang. Perak. And even in Selangor, they are all opposition, but they way they got into power was not based on how BN usually secured power. In this case, we even had malays voting out malays and Chinese voting out Malays.

I dont think this essay is very realistic. As when the Mr Balji writes

“In a country where the government has great clout and has immense persuasive powers to change mindsets, ”

That was what we Malaysian used to think as well not so long ago. We have to ask permission.

That may not be the case any more. As Singaporeandadi said, maybe we dont even need that sort of endorsement from politicians any longer.

If they dont do a good job out they go. I think that is the best form of meritocracy.

Great site and great conversations

I also have difficulty to understand this essay. Parts of it make sense. But when you read it all, the parts dont connect very well. Maybe my english is not so tokong.

For example, one moment Mr Balji say,
“what the Singapore establishment’s thinking was when a young, wet-behind-the-years American — and, mind you,a black at that — appeared on the American political stage with an audacious message to change his country.” then the next moment, he write. “Who else to effect that change than a Prime Minister who gave hope to so many Singaporeans with his inclusive society speech more than four years ago?”

The question I want to ask is did Mr B.Obama ask President George W Bush, “will you an african american like me your blessing to run for the president post?”

Is this what Mr Balji is saying.

When did things ever change that way?

In Malaysia. I am not saying we just makan but you dont see anuar ibrahim asking badawi or najib for permission to challenge, I dont think that is what real leaders do. They just assume it.

Maybe that is what happens if you spend nearly 4 decades working for a state owned press/ You begin to see bars even when it is not there and if you think you want to do something you feel the need to ask for permission. That is what a reporter who once told me in Utusan

Sorry ’singaporedaddy’, but I have to agree with ‘lips’ on this one. The statement that “he (Obama) only won because people were sick of Bush” is may be more complex than that.

It took US 200+ years since the abolishment of slavery to reach such a point in history. We are merely 43 years old. It may be too judgemental to compare ourselves to the US. To more enlighted folks, they may think that having a non-Chinese PM to be perfectly normal, however let us be realistic. Actually a simple survey may help. Ask your parents or grandparent if that was possible. The crux of the matter is cruel, but the colour of our skin affects us psychologically.

What happened in the US? For those who have read “Generations” (W. Strauss and N. Heil), I find the book interesting in that it did “predict” an Obama victory. What makes Obama different from Clinton or McCain is that he is a leader (or at least he represents strong leadership). The other 2 were managers. In a different environment, that of peace and prosperity, I would not be surprised if
Obama would have lost. In US current climate, they need a leader and Obama is that leader. Of course to just say that this is the only reason will be too simplistic.

Will such an event happen in Singapore? Yes I am sure. The question is when. I believe that happens when the people get more involved in our country and start having an interest in Singapore. Remember the reason why Obama won was because he managed to draw out the younger voters. The older voters voted for McCain. Do we love Singapore enough to come out and make a difference? I personally think this is a more profound and important question. It is not merely slamming the establishment but more of asking are we moving in a way that will improve Singaporeans.

10) louhankuo

No doubt about it that there are things we can learn from Malaysia but there are certain things that are not right in comparison. For example, Malaysia has a very vocal and well supported opposition whereas Singapore does not have one.

You are also right to observe our clutch mentality but this is due more to the painted picture than the real picture. I believe there are lots of us waiting to show that we do not have this mentality and will not exercise our right to immediately boot out those who do not perform. Problem is we have been told that we are not capable of doing this and that we have to continue to depend on this govt. But for how long more can such brainwashing continue? Not for long, I expect.

One thing I do not agree is the perception that this govt has a great clout and immense persuasive powers. I think this position is shifting by the day and the clout is becoming not so great anymore, at least where the general population is concerned. Its most persuasive channel, the MSM, is losing credibility by the day and with new platforms like online discussion, it can only erode away in time soon.

The writer of this article had predicted a three to five year period for MSM to continue to enjoy its current position with printed news.

Coming back to the topic, Malaysia too has some way to go before it can use itself as a role model. I remember coming across a report recently that a woman was placed in charge of an institution that makes policies for the Muslims in Malaysia. She was Chinese and there was a very big hoo ha so much so that the govt had to intervene and assure the Malays that she was there as an interim measure because of her long service and experience in running that body. She will be replaced by a Muslim as soon as they are able to get one.

See? Race is still an issue and always will be. How much can it affect the appointment on a minority PM in Singapore? Your guess is as good as mine.

correction in para 2

we will not hesitate to exercise our rights…

I was chatting with a friend last night about this. I said, “Why is it that Singapore leaders always fail to inspire when it comes to politics? They’re always saying this is not possible or good or timely…”

I think that is the difference between the US and S’pore. While Obama told Americans, “Yes, we can”, Singapore leaders tell S’poreans, “No, we’re not ready.”

I think on this issue of minority PM, the average S’porean is much more forward-thinking than our leaders.

Remember how PAP MPs and ministers kept saying that allowing demonstrations and protests would bring our economy to a halt? Well, look at Speakers Corner now. Thousands have assembled there in the last two months. Nothing’s happened.

Singaporeans seem to be more mature than their leaders.

For me, I am not interested in what is not possible.

I am more interested in what is possible.

And it is all in our minds.

And a minority PM is certainly possible in my lifetime, at least – in spite of what the current PM says.

His remarks show me how bigoted the PAP is, really. After all, who becomes PM is determined by the winning party in a General Election – and not the people per se. And if the sec-gen of the PAP says it is not possible yet, it actually means the PAP is not ready.

And as we all know, the PAP has been out of touch with the ground since the last elections in 2006.

So there.

My message is not to say race is or is not the issue. I am also not saying malaysians is better than singaporeans. If I come across as confusing sorry. I mean to say, as democratic people we should not have to ask like what Mr Balji is asking for. For permission.

“Who else to effect that change than a Prime Minister who gave hope to so many Singaporeans with his inclusive society speech more than four years ago?”

I mean if you read what he write about lee shien loong he is like talking about Huan ti!

I just dont think that is a very good bargaining place to even begin talking about rights, dont even talk abt color polticis yet. If this part is so wrong, then I think other parts cannot be right either. Thats why I think this essay is not very good. It is not clear at all. one moment it is saying please, next it is saying, I have a right, then please again and I have a right again.

very confusing

this is what i read from Mr Balji’s post:

- PM made a promise of an inclusive society.
- so therefore, of all the folks in Singapore, he’s (or PAP) the one who’s most capable, has the resources, of introducing a minority PM.
- for him (or PAP) to say not in the near future, is thus regrettable.

Imagine – he makes the announcement that the next PM has already been chosen and he’ll be, say, Dr Balakrishnan. And PM Lee goes out to explain to everyone – I chose Dr Balakrishnan, because of his strengths. And that Dr Balakrishnan will continue to put forward Singapore and Singaporeans’ interest at heart.

I mean – to be cynical and over simplify – if in the end people vote for the sake of upgrading, getting their SRS or growth dividend stuff from the govt, or even out of fear, does it matter what race the PM is?

Mr Andrew,

U cannot be more right.

If PAP was formed in stone age, Singaore will still be in stone age…

Becos the founder will keep repeating the story on how he had to fight Dinosaurs to survive. They would continue to tell us how to rob the neighbouring tribes, eat their meat, rape their women and children to survive…. He would also ban us from using fire becos he had seen how fire destroy the whole jungle….

That is why when the whole world had progressed… even Chinese government had appointed a NON-Communist Party as Minister…. and yet we are still talking on how to fix oppo or use knuckle duster…..

unbeknownst to many, what is possible in this world is unknown to all.
Even a PhD holder only has something like 0.0000001 % of the knowledge of this world. What I am trying to say is that no one is smart enough to predict the future for anyone no matter how confident they are. Confidence is a state of mind. it need not be the truth. A person based on his life experience can say this or that is or not possible. But that is only based on a limited knowledge when you know that this world contains so much knowledge, what a person knows is very little to say the least.

Anything is Possible. When someone says something is not possible, that is based on his knowledge only. There are infinite things a person does not know.

What will the economy be like? Your guess is as good as mine. A layman’s guess is as good as an economist’s regardless of his theoretical bombastication.

What is Transparency? Why not called Translucency when transparency is supposed to mean Full Disclosure. Practically it is impossible to expect any company to be fully transparent. So, why use an inappropriate term ? why not term it as Translucency? I think this is an appropriate description.

who be the prime minister is not important.

most important my salary will be higher and higher and i do lesser and lesser things.

same for you also whoever is the prime minster will be, now or forever.

isn’t that your hope also mr prime minister, no matter who you are?

i don’t think PAP says that “no, we are not ready”.
they look down on us, and say “look, you are stupid. just vote us in and let us, the smarties, make the decisions for you.”

Dear Andrew,

Thank you for your very progressive and forward looking comments

Just a point in history to note – Singapore and the PAP will not be here if it had not fixed the Chinese extremists, and then got us kicked out of Malaysia. The PAP has done a lot to bring Singapore to present day first world country in standards of living. Although it is in history, people normally have short memory of the efforts.

PM has spoken; he is passionate in his job although he may not have the charisma of MM to inspire, but do give him time to put things looking towards the people’s agenda.
Here is a plea for TOC to moderate comments to this type of sensitive post and those within the boundary of the OB markers – as there may be real reactions, and actions of pre-emptions by policy makers – like killing the goose before it lay the golden eggs.

Dear Quo Vadis,

It will be a very sad and dark day for Singapore and Singaporeans if such discussions are deemed too sensitive to be discussed in the open.

Here we have the PAP – and mind you, it’s LHL – who declared to the people that his style is more open and he will be more tolerant than any of his predecessors.

Furthermore, the topic is an extention of what he himself has opened for public discussion.

If there is to be any repercussions, then he has to traced it back to the Malay PAP grassroot leaders who questioned PM on his position on having a minority PM in Singapore.

How is it that TOC can be faulted for this forum?

Mr Quo Vadis,

Wa, very sensitive hor, need moderation…..

Thank you for your very wise reminder.. ssssssssshhhhhh …… c u hear me….shiiiiiiii

Hi Balji,

I assume this was just an opinion piece, and not an actual hard core analysis of meritocracy and race – I think the first dude who commented was expecting some scholarly stuff since you’ve got pretty good credentials at the bottom.

It’ll be good if you could elaborate in another piece, about this unproven statement:
“Mr Dhanabalan had that opportunity in 1990 but he was ruled out because of his race. Today, 18 years later, things have hardly changed.”

If you’re gonna accuse the gvt for being racist, you’d need to provide some hard evidence for that. When policies are subtle, statements like that just make you sound racist against the current chinese gvt (ironically).

I also have some problems with the last two paragraphs:

“In a country where the government has great clout and has immense persuasive powers to change mindsets, what is needed is a belief that a truly inclusive society can only be to Singapore’s reputation and advantage.

Who else to effect that change than a Prime Minister who gave hope to so many Singaporeans with his inclusive society speech more than four years ago?”

I gather that you don’t think society has a belief of inclusiveness, and hence it is up to the government to convince the people. But then u also mentioned earlier that an opposition is needed for a non-chinese PM to be elected/chosen. This is in direct contradiction to your notion that the gvt knows that inclusiveness is for the best, because why would an opposition be needed to convey an opinion that the ruling party already has?
If let’s say, the opposition would be needed to convey a notion of inclusiveness for the sake of merely legitimating a move that the PAP has already decided on, then your argument becomes a bit strange. If this were the case, then the PAP should encourage the opposition instead of constantly clamping down on them, clearly this is not the case here.
Another huge problem I have with your reference to the persuasive powers of the gvt, is the seemingly low opinion that you have on civil society. You seem to indicate that civil society is divided and racist in itself, unable to change unless the patrichal government steps in. Then this seems to run into the commonly held, but faulty opinion that the nanny state knows best.

Don’t you think that by sending your piece to the TOC, you are in fact contributing a momentum that could effect change in the future? Even if this wasn’t a high brow academic piece of work, every opinion on TOC counts because of wide readership. By even being published, you are empowered with your own opinion, autonomous from the gvt. So who needs the PM to effect change when collectively, all the small little opinions online can change mindsets slowly but surely?

Here is a plea for TOC to moderate comments to this type of sensitive post and those within the boundary of the OB markers – as there may be real reactions, and actions of pre-emptions by policy makers – like killing the goose before it lay the golden eggs. – Quo Vadis (#22)

The general quality of the comment threads on TOC are very good, very progressive and very constructive. We, Singaporeans, are well-aware of OB Markers but politics should never be an OB Marker itself. Compared to the politics page on Sgforums, TOC is already a far better forum to air our views and engage in constructive debates.

Dear Quo Vadis,

Yes, we are aware of the potential sensitive remarks which may surface in a discussion on a subject such as this. So, we’re keeping an eye on the comments.

But so far, the comments have been really great – and rational.

Personally, I think we should not fall into the thinking that all discussions about race or religion – no matter how mature or civilised they are – should be curtailed. I think most of the time it is unnecessary.

I believe that Singaporeans, contrary to what the govt likes to say, are mature and are capable of rational and objective discussions of such issues.

The comments here so far prove this.

Regards,
Andrew Loh

/// 15) Andrew Loh on November 10th, 2008 3.45 pm

I was chatting with a friend last night about this. I said, “Why is it that Singapore leaders always fail to inspire when it comes to politics? They’re always saying this is not possible or good or timely…”

I think that is the difference between the US and S’pore. While Obama told Americans, “Yes, we can”, Singapore leaders tell S’poreans, “No, we’re not ready.” ///

Andrew, the reasons are simple. Let the status remain quo. The basic premise is that the Singapore system is the best available. Various of this theme include:
1) We have the best team – A Team
2) We have all the answers
3) Singapore is special and vulnerable
4) Our neighbour is unfriendly
5) The opposition are full of crooks

Hi all,

“I assume this was just an opinion piece, and not an actual hard core analysis of meritocracy and race – I think the first dude who commented was expecting some scholarly stuff since you’ve got pretty good credentials at the bottom.”

Au contraire, you have no idea how modest my expectations were.

Gentlemen,

What is the nub that has been thrown out into the public square here? Let me put it this way. Do I deny values and beliefs people may hold in high regard cannot possibly migrate? Of course not, human history has aptly demonstrated man to be remarkably resilient in his capacity to accommodate differences; otherwise how would one be able to explain the ascendancy of Alberto Fujimori of Peru? He is a second generation Japanese in predominantly Amerindian Peru. Or for that matter Paul Beranger of Mauritius? Who incidentally happens to be of Saxony and Albanian stock in predominantly West Indian Mauritius. And what of Mahendra Chaudhry of Fiji? He is an Indian from the Mawari caste in predominantly Melanesian Fiji. If we choose to look further back, we may even draw happy analogies of cultural cosmopolitanism in how the Ottomans once willingly embraced the Janissaries into the sultanate by offering the right to marry Turkish ladies. Or even why the predominantly Han Chinese Mandarins were willing to entrust 鄭和, with the vermillion seal?

Indeed I would be a fool to say what Balji is advocating is implausible and insensible; gentlemen, history accords well with what he attempts to forward by way of logic; that’s to say; cultural cosmopolitanism is well and alive; but having said, I agree with him; it REMAINS one of degree; as I also agree somewhat with what PM Lee said; and by default that also raises nagging social political questions. The most obvious is this; if the remedy for cultural parochialism and narrowness is to listen to anyone who is prepared to talk abt his view of the world and its implications, what are we to do with those who may not even choose to do the same? Who may not even see the wisdom of seeking a middle path and to even compromise with others?

Because as much as we want to believe cultural cosmopolitan is the “right” way to move forward in this age; we may also need to contend ourselves with the reality; there will always be counter-cosmopolitans [such as Osama Bin Laden] who remain steadfast in their belief, there is only one right way to live; that all differences must be in the details.

And this view is neither rational or logical; but it doesn’t deny the fact that it has a preconocious hold on how some may wish to wordsmith the social narrative; as it merely epitomizes the scathing couplet;

“Und willst du nicht mein bruder sein, so schlag ich Dir den schadel ein!”

“If you are not with me, count you may enemy, I will!”

That my friends is the kernel and you have in the palm of your hands. So in summary both Balji and LHL remain purposefully right, but as I mentioned, it remains a matter of degree and extent and so we must all contend the devil is in the details.

Lets not stray too far from the whole discussion; as this is where it all begins and ends my friends.

SD (Internet Liaison Officer of the Brotherhood)

non chinese PM will never be a problem for me, nepotism and cronyism is.
what concerns me all this while is how lee jr is forced upon us by one man.
the manner in which lee jr ascended the throne has far more serious implications than having a non chinese PM.
prove to me he is the best person to lead and
i will prove to you some parts of my body can laugh.
don’t forget the incumbents have been bragging about their system of selection.
i do not know about you guys,
but i was never ready to accept a father + son + daughter in law arrangement.

If rumor is any guide, Mr S Dhanabalan has been recalled to PM Lee’s office to be given another tight slap for saying the wrong thing.

Regarding the selection of LSL as PM, frankly speaking, I think he has done alright given the circumstances that he is in right now. Who can do a better job? Mr Mah BT? Dhanabalan? George Yeo? The incumbent Tony Tan maybe?

They are already talking about the future PM – maybe Tharma or Khaw. One thing we must salute PAP is that they are always renewing themselves. LKY can hold on to power for a good ten more years but he removed himself and let GCT took over. Of course, the biggest mistake is that he assumed the role of MM too soon and is seen as a power grabber. I don’t blame him as if you looked at ex-PM Mahatir, he is already slwoing making his way back to politics. It goes to show that those who stay in power for too long has difficulty relinguishing.

If our PM is not LKY’s son, I guess people will be more receptive to him. His greatest barrier is that he is LKY’s son. He has to face up to a cabinet meeting and see his father sitting there blaring away. During Parliament, directly facing him, is his own father watching him. I don’t think LSL enjoyed all this attention thrusted upon him.

The worse mistake is to make his own wife Chairman of Temasek Holdings despite all the talk of lack of talent in choices. It goes to show that they have come to a stage that they no longer bother about what others think or speak behind their back, they simply do what they think is best. Maybe their thoughts are for the best of Singapore I don’t know but to me it is all wrong. With the son at the helm and LKY as ex-PM and MM, most dinner conversations may centre on politics especially as Ho Ching is the boss of Temesak. Not an easy thing to stomach for even the most bochap loyal PAP suppporter. This is not smart politics.

The biggest challenge for the government right now is to regain back the trust and support of the common people by ensuring that they care. They need to relent slightly and go back on their policies. ERP charges I heard has came down today. Utilities need to come down further for a country that is in recession right now. The PM needs to say “I have heard you and I am going to modify some of our policies especially those regarding foreign imports and cost of living issues.”

If he does that, I am sure he will win back those votes that he lost during these few years. Am I dreaming or what?

As a member of the minority race, I feel obliged to add my 2 cents worth on this very interesting, thought-provoking piece.

Singapore is a place where merit takes precedence, and where ability comes first. Race has never been an issue. So says the Government.

However, the reality on the ground is different. People still talk about race, identify themselves with their creed, and racial lines albeit blurred (when compared to prior generations) are still existent. As such, it’d be improbable and difficult for a non-chinese to sway and carry the major political bloc over. It’s difficult to win hearts if you can’t afford to not only speak but master the native language of the majority, that is Mandarin. Even then, there’re still chinese clans and associations (powerful political brokers) you’ve to win over. ie Ngee Ann Kongsi, Chinese Chamber of Commerce and Industry etc. It’s not unlikely, but extremely difficult possibility.

It’s only until there’s complete dilution of racial identity where full optimum integration is acheived would we observe such an eventuality. A good first step would be to have the word “race” in our Identification Cards removed and replaced by “Singaporean”.

Young_politician,

yah lah, I also don’t understand why we must have race leh.

We are all singaporeans, why must divide..

doesn’t make sense..

haiz

What if LKY was a minority? What if he was a Malay? Do you think the Chinese would have allowed him to pass on his PMship to his son? I don’t think the Chinese or Indians would have made a big issue out of it as long as the welfare of the citizens are looked after.

The problem is not the people. It is the PAP. More precisely, it is the L-E-E-s.

If LHL has a twenty, thirty year old son, I am sure there won’t be any talk about this topic at all. His son will be sitting by the wings for the daddy to pass the bacon (sorry, baton) to him.

Now I am talking rubbish but I don’t care because the problem of having, or not having, a minority PM is PAP’s own making. It has nothing to do with the population at large.

You speakers of English are either deluded or liars. Under the current of all this public politico, you have to be aware of creeds that people are only subconsciously aware of. Not all speakers of Mandarin here have Mandarin as their native or mother tongue. Singaporeans usually speak English at near native abilities, and in fact Mandarin is only the mother tongue of those who come from some province near Beijing. If you really want to know the real mother tongue of Chinese Singaporeans, you have to look at languages cast away in what linguists here have called the “substratum”, languages or ‘dialects’ as they are called which influence almost everything else on the surface. After that, you’ll begin to see that not all Chinese Singaporeans are in the ‘majority group’.

Personally, it does not matter any difference to me if the PM is of any race. It is of no consequence. The PM’s race is not important but his/her service to the nation is.

What can he/she possibly do but to be a seat warmer and to espouse the ideals of the ruling party? Would a PM from the minority races make a difference to our lot in life?

Gemami, I think you’ve lost point. The problem does not lie with the PAP, but rather the mindset of the population. People are still unfamiliar with the prospect of having a non-Chinese Prime Minister. Nevertheless, it’s neither the Government nor the citizenry at fault- it’s the culture, the environment in which we’re brought up in. It’s not easy putting people of different races, creed, religion and colour all in one place. Initially, there’ll be resistances, conflicts (which we witnessed during our early years as a nation) and slowly but surely, we matured as a people. We tolerated, understood and eventually accepted others who’re not of the same skin colour, who speaks different languages, who follows different customs and traditions, collectively in a peaceful and harmonious context. All these materialized due to the multi-racial, multi-religious and non-discriminatory policies of the PAP. However, there’re still kinks and flaws yet to be countered although the realization that they’re still more room for maturity is present. As such, we’ve got a long road ahead of us to fulfill our dream of ideal integration where the emergence of a non-Chinese PM would be a non-issue.
The crux of the matter, though, is that we’ve progressed tremendously over the years and, hopefully, the progress momentum is still as high as we move into the future. I am confident that the PAP will be receptive towards the progression and maturity of the mindsets of its citizens. The PAP is a political party- it has to be able to accept and execute the peoples’ interests, whatever they may be. For the moment it goes against the peoples’ interests, it’d be voted out of power by the people.

Tis the problem with race isn’t it.

How chinese are we, how malay are we and how indian are we.

Indeed it’s more than 70% chinese, but out of this ratio is the level of “chineseness” uniform in that? and presumably a chinese and indian who don’t speak their mother tongue, how different are they?

and it’s worth noting too that the term ‘meritocracy’ was first meant to be pejorative.

I am of the view that only the PAP is not ready for a non chinese pm. If the population is given the chance to vote for a pm, race will not be an issue.

Just a thought… what if Hillary had won the Democratic Ticket and won the presidential elections?

Probably, the discussions in this forum would turn: Are we ready for a Woman PM?

John Lennon once sung, Woman is the Nigger of the World, highlighting the position of blanket discrimination of women around the world, a level of discrimination the negro race used to receive.

Perhaps, it is necessary to broaden the discussion beyond ethnicity to include the marginalised talents in our society altogether.

Most importantly, we wouldn’t want tokenism to preceed all considerations. However, should:-

A capable candidate who is a Malay/ an Indian/ an Eurasian/ A Muslim/ a Catholic/ A Protestant/ A Buddhist/ A Jew/ A Woman/ An Primary School Drop out/ An Ex Offender/ An Ex PAP supporter/ An Ex Opposition candidate… etc.

come from amongst the ranks and are able to gain the confidence of the citizens, we wouldn’t want to discount them by putting in place unnecessary moralist criteria of a ‘perfect track record’. The PM is not the government. He leads the cabinet no doubt, and his Ministers leads the ministries.

If the staff in the ministries/ stat boards/ CDCs/ town councils are hopelessly afraid to report the truth in their updates to their bosses so as to paint a rosy picture all the time, and their Bosses (the ministers) work on the same mould and report only the good things to the PM, there is just no way that the PM, no matter how credible he/she is as an individual can get to do a good job.

My take is that LHL’s comments is not about race preference/acceptance alone. It has got to do with preserving the elitism that was created by the Education system. Look at last year’s PSLE top scorer Natasha Nabila. She has the grades to walk into any SAP school but is there one at present that can accomodate her? Why wasn’t the race factor raised then?

SAP schools, was the start of a preferential education system largely to serve the society’s elites (read people with deep pockets). Now there are the through train, NUS High School for Maths and Science etc. etc. which are largely very competetive to get in and would require extensive educational support resources to ensure the student get a place and keep up. There are the odd few from the lower rungs of society that creeps through, but how many and where do they go after that?

Now, what if the criteria for a perfect academic record is dropped? Late bloomers who have not set foot in premier local high schools but managed to travel the rocky path up to earn their Ph.Ds in top notch Universities worldwide would have a good claim to lead. What do you do then with the thousands of elite school graduates who are purportedly groomed to be leaders in society?

I don’t think we can forget how Chiam See Tong was humiliated for his ‘O’ levels results. He is Chinese. He has earned his professional qualifications. But he is deemed lousy to be a people’s rep as his ‘O’ level grades were just above average,

As a Chinese Singaporean, I have no problem with non-Chinese PM. On 16/Oct/2008, I had posted the following in a local Chinese Blog (Ref: http://blog.omy.sg/annalim/archives/1596):

新美两国的多元种族政策有不同，我们不同化各族，美国则以同化为主流。例如奥巴马，他除了肤色外，在语言、文化及宗教上是完全与白人一样的。他若当选美国总统，将显示美国同化多元种族政策的巨大成就。
而我国若有一天选岀马来或印度同胞为总理，他或她在语言、文化及宗教上是不必被同化的（当然英语将作为各族之间的共通语），这将是我国多元种族政策期待的成就。

Good Evening.

I am equally perplexed by Balaji’s comments above and by some of his week;y editorials but I laud his contributions through the years to the Today paper which I consider more palatable than the Straits Times. I hope Balaji sets up a blog like Cherian George.

I am on the belief that President elect Obama won the ticket not on race but on a host of other issues which have been dissected successful by the commentators above. Balaji does make a valid point that Singapore’s one-party politics, successful stability and socially engineered demographics will not make it possible for an ethnic minority to hold office at the highest levels.More so, someone from a different party. I would like to see that in my lifetime at least and not from afar.

I was hoping that Obama’s candidacy would spark a rethink among the local electorate that there is nothing wrong in voting in someone from a different party.I am not talking about Race here. A possible uplift effect here in Singapore for the current alternative parties to approach a similar campaign to that of the Democrats is plausible .That a small ‘Hope’ and small ‘Change’ is attainable.

And what do I mean by small ‘Hope’ and small ‘Change’? 5 seats in the next elections.Sounds minuscule, 6% of seats to represent the odd 30% but its a good start.It might prove to be a ‘tipping point’.Like I mentioned in an earlier post that Hong Lim Park would need to see a gathering of 10,000 on a regular basis to see this small ‘Change’ and small ‘Hope’.This will ultimately remove the fear.I hope that it is for a gathering of not personal or financial nature. Maybe a gathering on the re-drawing of electoral boundaries.

But unfortunately, as I expected, Race has been brought up like the Bogey Man to derail any possibility of small ‘Change’ and small ‘Hope’ in the next elections.I did a survey with my friends and colleagues who voted in the US presidential elections. And I got skewed responses, probably these guys were doing a Bradley effect on me. Got me thinking that maybe the surveys by the Institute of Policy Studies and the S Rajaratnam School of International Studies will probably solicit the Bradley effect in the polls.

I am disappointed that the Prime Minister has side stepped on the actual issues and implications about the US Presidential Elections.The message was supposed to be about Hope and Change which might further democratize Singapore. Instead he harps about a non-related non-issue about Race.This will further erode relationships between races and will play into the People’s Action Party’s strategy to win at the next elections through Dividing and Conquering.

I agree with the commentary above that it is the PAP that ultimately decides who the PM should be.Not the electorate.The PAP has the opportunity to practice meritocracy which it champions vociferously. It’s failure in doing so speaks volumes and shows distrust by its’ leadership of the minorities.The PM’s commentary also indirectly advocates that the majority have a similar distrust of the minorities which is blatantly not true. The majority have to castigate him for his views.

What we need now is more voices in Parliament. He can be a Singaporean Eskimo for all that matters. We just have to make sure that he is heard and he is supported.Could more Eskimo’s step forward. It’s a numbers game and we can’t afford to be non-partisan and bystanders forever.

Warmest Regards.

The Obama victory was spectacular and I think and the Americans I speak to seem to agree that it is wonderfully symbolic that a “Black” man with Hussein as a middle name won the highest office in the most powerful country on earth.

However, let’s not get too carried away with this. Mr Obama may be a “darker” shade of pink and have a name most Americans associate with the “Enemy,” but he is by no means a typical “Black” man born and bread in the slums of New York. The man is exceedingly well educated and comes from top schools. His organisation of his campaign and his use of new media was masterful as much as both his opponents (Hillary and McCain) was awful. Yes, he happens to be a bit more tanned than allot of Americans but he’s exceedingly smart and has the will to outsmart the rest of the field.

So, how does this apply to Singapore and the question of whether we’ll have a “non-Chinese” PM. Well, sad to say, I’m inclined to agree with the PM – there’s no reason why we can’t have one but it will take time.

Let’s face it, America, the “Land of the Brave and Free” has taken 200 years to elect a “Black” man and one they’ve elected is far removed from the life of the ‘average’ black man. In short, Mr Obama is the “Acceptable” face of “Black” America to the “White” majority.

So, let’s see if this works in Singapore, a country which is at its heart multi-ethnic and multi-cultural out of pragmatism than ideology? Well, there is a similarity in this analogy – most ‘liberal’ minded Chinese educated in the Singapore system and gone through the National Service Machine, will have no problem accepting the leadership of a “Non-Chinese” provided we’re talking about an “Acceptable NON Chinese.” What do I mean by that? Well, we’d be looking at someone who went to the right schools, right JC, served in the right army unit, went to the right university and works in a respectable profession. For the majority of “Middle Class” Singaporeans, race of a PM is less of an issue than class. “Educated” Singaporeans are likely to be more comfortable with Guna the RJC Boy running for PM than Tan Ah Siow from Ah Beng Secondary.

But what of the heartlanders? It will probably take a bit more time for a non-Chinese to win them over. Just listen in on some conversations about “typical Mama’s” in the heartlands and you’ll be shocked by how far 43-years of Nation Building has failed to penetrate mindsets. However, people are accepting their daughters marrying outside their race and so why can’t the mindset towards a non-Chinese PM Change. Then again, the “Non-Chinese” would have to “Acceptable” to the majority Chinese population – ie be educated, successful, professional and in addition have a greater interest in Chinese culture than they’re own – Indians who speak dialect are ‘acceptable.’

For me, I don’t really care if the PM is black, white, yellow or purple. What I do care about is whether he or she is right for the job, and in this instance, I think we need to define right or wrong by something other than academic qualifications. It would be nice if someone without a family name, party connections and more importantly lacking in paper qualifications actually running the show.

If Obama felt that or gave in to the idea that because racism still exists and that many still do not feel a black guy should lead, and there has never been an example of a black president of USA, that he should not even try, then, he would never have won.

Singapura has been a 4 race country for long time. Yet, there has never been a Malay PM. Our anthem is in Bahasa Malayu. Our country history is tied Malaysia.
Our earliest leaders included Sultans. The malays have progressed very well. I would support a Malay PM if a capable Malay candidate stand for election.
There should never be any discrimination.

hang on, we don’t really vote for our prime minister. The cabinet votes for the PM, and we vote for the cabinet.

So the question is, whether the cabinet is ready for a non-chinese PM?

If all that you’ve said is true then the PM would not have to ask such a question does he?

You said: People are still unfamiliar with the prospect of having a non-Chinese Prime Minister.

No doubt this is unfamiliar ground but does it qualify as a judgement on the perception or the mindset of the people? Judging from the response here in TOC, it misses by a mile and a half. People are ready for whoever the PM is regardless of race as long as the PM does the job of looking after its citizens.

You said: Nevertheless, it’s neither the Government nor the citizenry at fault- it’s the culture, the environment in which we’re brought up in. It’s not easy putting people of different races, creed, religion and colour all in one place. Initially, there’ll be resistances, conflicts (which we witnessed during our early years as a nation) and slowly but surely, we matured as a people. We tolerated, understood and eventually accepted others who’re not of the same skin colour, who speaks different languages, who follows different customs and traditions, collectively in a peaceful and harmonious context.

You identified the “culture” as the one at fault and then you go along to describe the composition of the different races and how they are able to grow to maturity. How then, with such community bonding and such an understanding of each other, can it result in a mindset or culture problem?

If it is a mindset or culture problem, then the PAP has failed and failed very badly. We can judge this by the our national pledge to build a democratic society … regardless of race, language or religion ….

You said: we’ve got a long road ahead of us to fulfill our dream of ideal integration where the emergence of a non-Chinese PM would be a non-issue.

Do we really need for an ideal integration before we can decide to accept a minority PM? The people have already spoken here that they do not mind a minority PM. Is our integration ideal already?

You said: The crux of the matter, though, is that we’ve progressed tremendously over the years…

Huh? your point is…….?
The crux of the matter (and why we cannot accept a minority PM) is because we have progressed tremendously? Hmmm….. I want to know more.

You said: The PAP is a political party- it has to be able to accept and execute the peoples’ interests, whatever they may be. For the moment it goes against the peoples’ interests, it’d be voted out of power by the people.

You’re damn right. And with people like you listening in and getting it all wrong and mixed up, no wonder the PAP is in deep shit.

post #47 is in response to post #38) young_politician on November 11th, 2008 12.09 am

If all that you’ve said is true then the PM would not have to ask such a question does he?
You said: People are still unfamiliar with the prospect of having a non-Chinese Prime Minister.
No doubt this is unfamiliar ground but does it qualify as a judgement on the perception or the mindset of the people? Judging from the response here in TOC, it misses by a mile and a half. People are ready for whoever the PM is regardless of race as long as the PM does the job of looking after its citizens.

I think we’ve to understand the inherent limitations to that statement. You said people here in TOC- they’re open to the prospects of a non-Chinese Prime Minister. Yes, but so what? How far does that go in it’s relevance to the actual Singapore population? The silent majority has not spoken and you made such a baseless generalization. Even then, there are no actual surveys/polls done here in TOC to justify your statement.

You said: Nevertheless, it’s neither the Government nor the citizenry at fault- it’s the culture, the environment in which we’re brought up in. It’s not easy putting people of different races, creed, religion and colour all in one place. Initially, there’ll be resistances, conflicts (which we witnessed during our early years as a nation) and slowly but surely, we matured as a people. We tolerated, understood and eventually accepted others who’re not of the same skin colour, who speaks different languages, who follows different customs and traditions, collectively in a peaceful and harmonious context.
You identified the “culture” as the one at fault and then you go along to describe the composition of the different races and how they are able to grow to maturity. How then, with such community bonding and such an understanding of each other, can it result in a mindset or culture problem?
If it is a mindset or culture problem, then the PAP has failed and failed very badly. We can judge this by the our national pledge to build a democratic society … regardless of race, language or religion
You said: we’ve got a long road ahead of us to fulfill our dream of ideal integration where the emergence of a non-Chinese PM would be a non-issue.
Do we really need for an ideal integration before we can decide to accept a minority PM? The people have already spoken here that they do not mind a minority PM. Is our integration ideal already?

The PAP shouldn’t be chastised and criticized just because apparent flaws in our mindsets exist. It’s like you’re trying to paint the PAP like the Almighty, the Lord- responsible for any hiccups in our behavior and mindset which you deem incorrect. I’ll give you a more appropriate analogy. Do you blame the parents of misled youth who’re involved in crimes and other social ills? Surely, other factors like the environment, influence and culture plays a part in shaping the ultimate and eventual mindset and behavior of the individual.
We’re living in peace and harmony. There’re no outright conflicts happening between the different races. Why? Because the non-discriminatory, multi-racial and multi-religious policies and framework of the PAP has worked. Nevertheless, as I’d said earlier, flaws still exist and it is hoped that there is collective resolve and will to overcome them as we move into the future.

Huh? your point is…….?
The crux of the matter (and why we cannot accept a minority PM) is because we have progressed tremendously? Hmmm….. I want to know more.
You said: The PAP is a political party- it has to be able to accept and execute the peoples’ interests, whatever they may be. For the moment it goes against the peoples’ interests, it’d be voted out of power by the people.
You’re damn right. And with people like you listening in and getting it all wrong and mixed up, no wonder the PAP is in deep shit.
I don’t think I am “listening in” and “getting it all wrong”. I can also claim you to be a Chee Soon Juan sympathizer. Let’s not resort to cheap and callous potshots here and instead, debate issue VS issue like real gentlemen.
Thank you.

49) young_politician

The basis of using TOC as a reference is no different to the ST for supporting such a conflicting belief that the people are not ready for a minority PM. Under what basis does ST or LHL make such an assumption. Were there any survey conducted to support this or is it because he is LHL that no one dares to question him on what basis he made that statement, that assumption?

Now, now, it is precisely that the mindsets of the people are so diverse (something you call flawed), that such statements becomes a generalisation of something that has not yet proven to be a fact. Now, who is to be blamed. Mind you, it’s not Tan Ah Kow making such a statement. It’s the Prime Minister of Singapore.

As for you claim that I may be trying to paint the PAP as God, well, I do not need to do this. The PAP has painted its own picture by always proclaiming to possess the qualities that are very much like taht of God – Infallable.

One thing I do agree with you, and I now chastise myself in case you accuse me of allowing my emotions to take control of my writing, is yes, I apologise for the uncalled for ending to my last post.

Thanks indeed.

[...] the other hand, Balji pointed out that there are three obstacles to a non-Chinese Prime Minister. According to him, they are Singapore’s ‘one-party politics, stability and  [...]

My only question is:

Why is it that in the US, they are saying “Yes we can!” but in Singapore we are saying “But we cannot….yet.”

Dear Friends,

I would first like to say, that what I am about to say is totally my opinion and that I am not an expert in politics and I do not have any credentials to back up my opinions. With that said, let me say my two cents worth, on this very interesting conversation.

Throughout, this discussion, 2 issues amongst others have come up consistently. The issue of bipartisanship, if indeed that means having a 2 party system. The other issue is of us in Singapore having a PM from a minority race.

Of course the reference point is the recent election of Obama, in the US.

Firstly, I would like to ask, even if we have a PM from a minority race, why must he or she essentially belong to a opposition party?

Secondly, there seems to be the assumption that we have candidates, who are as talented and driven and self sacrificial as Obama, from a minority race.

The PAP, has been consistently stating in the ST that it is always on the lookout for the brightest and most suitable individuals who have a passion for Singapore, to absorb into its ranks.

Running the country is not a simple job. It requires selfless sacrifice. Our leaders have to work even during their weekends, gracing this occasion or chairing that occasion. They have to consistently be thinking for us. MM once asked people to consider why he is still there. I mean, why not retire now, and retire say in Switzerland? Its not like he needs the very controversial salaries from the government. Yet here he is, even in his golden years, sweating for our country, for us.

The PAP has a tried and tested system. Our leaders care for us. There is no other reason why, they rather be here. I mean as MM pointed out, these men and women can earn much more in the private sector given their capability. With that said, even if Singaporeans want some policy changed, why cant we work within the existing framework of government? The democrats have always been there and so perhaps the people could take a chance with them. In Singapore, which is a very small country, does it not make sense to say that there is only space in one party for the best and the brightest?It makes sense for our best to work together in one framework as opposed to working against each other in opposing parties. And which framework, better than the one that has single handedly brought us here, where everyone can dream and work hard and make it rich. The PAP emphasizes meritocracy, and we do see generals and colonels in the SAF, who are of the minority race. The PAP is race blind, as the PM has said. It is then, the people who have to decide for themselves. If indeed there is someone as talented, as Obama, in the minority race, the PAP would surely have approached him or her by now. And I am sure, that, in the interest of Singapore, the PAP, would be agreeable to have a PM from a minority race. It is easier to work within the tried and tested framework for this certain individual, don’t you think?

So the questions to ask are,
1. If the electorate is race blind? ( for the government is)
2. Is there really someone from a minority race who can be compared to Obama?
3. Why do we need a 2 party system for such a small country, would it not be counter productive?

Thank you. Im not an expert, and I am just thinking aloud.

Justanopinion

53) Justanopinion

Dear Justanopinion,

You might not be an expert on politics but you sure are a very careful fellow. There seems to be a deception in your gentleness (forgive me if I sound offensive but, you know, it’s better to be truthful than to live a lie, right?).

I’m not sure if you have the correct take when you summarize the discussion as having two consistent issues, namely bi-partisanship and a 2 party system.
Looks like you prefer to set the theme for what you were about to share instead.

Never mind this, since we will give you the benefit of the doubt that you are not an expert on politics. I shall also speak at the same level. This is not to say I am an expert either. Far from it, for there are still a lot to learn each day.

You said:

Running the country is not a simple job. It requires selfless sacrifice. Our leaders have to work even during their weekends, gracing this occasion or chairing that occasion. They have to consistently be thinking for us.

Do they know that living in Singapore is not an easy task then? It requires a lot of selfless sacrifice, sometimes not by choice but by order. Most of us have to work on weekends and our family members may also work nights and weekend nights. Do they know? or do they think it is something necessary and that it is a citizen’s duty to do so? Is it more tiring to grace occasions or attend invites or to run everywhere looking to place food on your table?

You said: MM once asked people to consider why he is still there. I mean, why not retire now, and retire say in Switzerland? Its not like he needs the very controversial salaries from the government. Yet here he is, even in his golden years, sweating for our country, for us. .

Believe you me, this is his way of convincing the people but go deeper into it and ask if this is true. Do you not think the relationship between a father and a son is a more important factor to stay in the neighbourhood, so to speak? He feels he is still able to come to his son’s rescue should he need him. Stay close by. I have no doubt that money does not interest him. So, the only reason is the son. Is he sweating for the country or for the son then? You answer this.

You said: The PAP has a tried and tested system. Our leaders care for us. There is no other reason why, they rather be here.

I shall not delve too deep into this. The answers and comments in this forum is too plain to see, hear and read. Take your time.

You said: . I mean as MM pointed out, these men and women can earn much more in the private sector given their capability.

MM sure has written his own bible doesn’t he? He can point out all he wants but truth be told, how much was LHL earning when he was in the SAF. How much would he have earned should he had left the SAF to look for a job in the private sector? Now before you answer this question, I want you to do one thing. Let’s imagine his name is not LEE Hsien Loong but Tan How Lian. Now you answer.

You said: In Singapore, which is a very small country, does it not make sense to say that there is only space in one party for the best and the brightest?It makes sense for our best to work together in one framework as opposed to working against each other in opposing parties. And which framework, better than the one that has single handedly brought us here, where everyone can dream and work hard and make it rich.

Space or the lack of it is no reason why there cannot be an Alternative Party or in having a multi-party system of governance. Yes, two heads are better than one but also too many cooks spoil the soup.

So the answer to your question is, no, we cannot have the brightest in one team if the team is beholden to one manipulator. It defeats the purpose of having the brightest in one pool.

Also, intelligence is a very subjective matter altogether.
I shall not elaborate too much because of space but it suffice to say that a social worker is brighter and more intelligent than a politician with issues that deals with people’s social habits. So you see, what do you mean by ‘brightest’?

And, oh yes, I almost missed it. Is it true that EVERYONE can dream of being rich with hard work? You believe? I suggest you go outside your home or office, go find the old lady or old man picking cardboards who had helped to build Singapore brick by brick and tell them exactly what you have written here, then you come back and tell us what happened. Can I entrust you to do this?

I do not disagree that the PAP govt is race-blind. See, we have something we can agree on.

Thank you for sharing.

Cheers ;)

FACT: Two terms of the elected presidency in Singapore during the last decade were won uncontested by a former civil servant of a minority race that makes up less than 8% of the voting population.

CONSEQUENCE: Is the Prime Minister suggesting that two miracles had happened in those two consecutive elections? Has the country suffered as a result of that choice? Did we pay a great social cost having a person of a racial minority elected to the most highly-paid public office in our system? Did a field survey – that the Prime Minister has done and yet to share with us – showed that our racial-minority President has not been popularly accepted? What makes him say such things?

Does Singapore not deserve the best leaders available, regardless of gender, race and religion? Isn’t that the main reason we are paying the highest salary packages in the world per capita to our Ministers? To get only the best and not just the next best? Can some skin colours possibly be less “best” in the Prime Minister’s eyes? We are not seeing the logic here, but some true colours seems to be showing.

HISTORY: Ready or not ready, Singapore had accepted the President’s dedicated service to watch over the country’s reserve and perform distinguished ceremonial duties for more than 10 years. We haven’t seen violent objections. “Not any time soon” has been happening sooner than you think or remember.

One can never be ready for history. But some will continue to live in denial of history.

This country really has a warped and twisted sense of history and time…progress in this country happens in the most bizarre and topsy-turvy sequence – we can be so blind to what has already happened, and then when it is almost gone and happily over, realise we were never ready for it in the first place!!!

[#54 gemami]

An excellent response to #53.

I agree with you totally, gemami. Kudos to you.